Queer As Folk
- Thread starter pcanning
- Start date
butterfly child
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree that there are some mature 15 year olds about, the law is there for a reason - and that reason is very valid.
It's ironic that on one thread - the "would you sleep with a 16 y.o" - everyone is going on about how bad it is to sleep with a 16 year old, and yet on this thread, it is perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to sleep with a 15 year old boy!
It's ironic that on one thread - the "would you sleep with a 16 y.o" - everyone is going on about how bad it is to sleep with a 16 year old, and yet on this thread, it is perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to sleep with a 15 year old boy!
HarrisonSlade said:
AFAIK, the TV watchdog whatever it is called upheld no complaints against QAF from tthe "moral majority" let alone any suggestion that it was child pornography.
That you see fit to accuse me of defending the abuse and exploitation of children to back up my "little issues" exposes the depths to which a once interesting poster has noticably sunk over the last few weeks.
FUCK OFF!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
If I ever see a post from H. Slade that isn't negative and/or provocative, I think I'll trace his address via his ISP and get the emergency services to break in, as he will either be in some sort of excitable psychotic state, or tied up in a cupboard with an imposter tapping away at the keyboard. Just put him on ignore if you can't stand any more...I can imagine him sniggering away at the number of normally mild-mannered people he's wound up. Think of him as an ersatz ern.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
<Mrs M thinks she should perhaps give Harrison Slade the benefit of the doubt and quietly leads him aside to explain a few things>
Harrison, there are things in life that happen that are outside the experience of large sections of the population. One way that these things can be explored is through DRAMA (remember that word, I'll be asking questions later to make sure you've grasped the concept) Sometimes FICTION is used to illustrate things that happen in the real world. In the real world some 15 year olds (of either sex) are desperate to lose their virginity. One the whole they prefer to do this with someone who is, in their eyes, cool and experienced in the ways of the world. When a DRAMATIST wants to portray something like this they very often use ACTORS. Now this may shock you but the actor that portrayed the teenager is much older than 15, is not Gay iirc and he and the other actor weren't really having sex, they were PRETENDING.
Sometimes crimes are portrayed in a drama (I used that word earlier, do you remember?), even dreadful crimes like murder. There are ancient plays, like Medea written by a very clever man called Euripides where Medea murders her own children (I know! Horrid and shocking, isn't it?). Again, the actors are just pretending, and when this play is put on real CHILD ACTORS are often used. It is explained to them before that they aren't really going to be killed so don't worry. Children quite like pretending to die in agony and with lots of screaming, they even do it for fun sometimes when they PLAY with their friends. This sort of play is not the same as A PLAY, which is written by someone called a PLAYWRIGHT except they both involve pretending.
I once had a friend who is an actor who is black. He played Ariel*, a fairy and was the first black person in the Royal Shakespeare Company to play this part. Some people were shocked by this and said "But you don't get black fairies!". It was explained to them that fairies don't actually exist and he was just pretending.
*Ariel is in a play written by a very clever man called WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. He wrote lots of plays. In some of them men dress up as ladies and ladies dress up as men! Isn't that a funny thing? He did write a horrid one where a woman has her tongue cut out too, but remember that word I told you earlier? Yes! PRETENDING! Well done!
Harrison, there are things in life that happen that are outside the experience of large sections of the population. One way that these things can be explored is through DRAMA (remember that word, I'll be asking questions later to make sure you've grasped the concept) Sometimes FICTION is used to illustrate things that happen in the real world. In the real world some 15 year olds (of either sex) are desperate to lose their virginity. One the whole they prefer to do this with someone who is, in their eyes, cool and experienced in the ways of the world. When a DRAMATIST wants to portray something like this they very often use ACTORS. Now this may shock you but the actor that portrayed the teenager is much older than 15, is not Gay iirc and he and the other actor weren't really having sex, they were PRETENDING.
Sometimes crimes are portrayed in a drama (I used that word earlier, do you remember?), even dreadful crimes like murder. There are ancient plays, like Medea written by a very clever man called Euripides where Medea murders her own children (I know! Horrid and shocking, isn't it?). Again, the actors are just pretending, and when this play is put on real CHILD ACTORS are often used. It is explained to them before that they aren't really going to be killed so don't worry. Children quite like pretending to die in agony and with lots of screaming, they even do it for fun sometimes when they PLAY with their friends. This sort of play is not the same as A PLAY, which is written by someone called a PLAYWRIGHT except they both involve pretending.
I once had a friend who is an actor who is black. He played Ariel*, a fairy and was the first black person in the Royal Shakespeare Company to play this part. Some people were shocked by this and said "But you don't get black fairies!". It was explained to them that fairies don't actually exist and he was just pretending.
*Ariel is in a play written by a very clever man called WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. He wrote lots of plays. In some of them men dress up as ladies and ladies dress up as men! Isn't that a funny thing? He did write a horrid one where a woman has her tongue cut out too, but remember that word I told you earlier? Yes! PRETENDING! Well done!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I remembered a line in the UK QAF. Vince's Mum tells the teenager's Mum 'Not to think about the arse thing.' Perhaps Harrison will feel less uncomfortable if he doesn't think about the arse thing. Harrison, if it bothers you, there's a very nice song in The Sound Of Music all about raindrops and whiskers on kittens. Hum it to yourself if you have these horrid intrusive arse thoughts.
AFAIK, nearly all the actors on the UK QAF were straight, apart from Anthony Cotton, obviously!
When they were casting, it was VERY hard to get an ACTOR for the Nathan because he needed to look "boyish" but obviously there were legal issues. Charlie Hunham was over 18 when he PLAYED the character.
very glad to see I'm not the only one who's actually seen the U.S. version!
Yes, I do think it's homophobic programming by E4.
for a start, it is made specifically for gay people. it is *not made firstly for a straight audience, like everything else covering 'our issues' on C4/E4.
secondly, it is quality stuff. well-written and acted and up there. it is not 'more american dross'.
thirdly, if you look at E4's schedule it is difficult to see the programming as anything but homophobic. it's on once-a-week, with no repeats. practically everything else is repeated. it's also on in the middle of the night.
it does have gay sex in it but then again it's no more 'offensive' then many thousands of other scenes, they just happen to be straight. I would love someone to do some research and count same-sex kisses Vs opposite-sex kisses. the result would be in the hundreds to one, if not more I reckon. I think gay sex is the real reason why it's on at 12.45am.
what else do we have on TV that comes close to our lives? the barmen on corrie? graham norton? name something!
it's all tokenistic or aimed at straight people. very valuable in terms of 'normalising' us, and graham's great, but QAF-US *isn't trying for anything like that. it's for us and that's why it's being sidelined.
even though the QAF lifestyle is one I left behind I can still relate to the dilemmas. the death of one of the HIV+ characters was much better than any other drama I've seen precisely because it assumes knowledge in the audience and doesn't have to constantly explain everything.
p.s. there is a fantastic current story in QAF/US about the treatment of gay teenagers by supposedly 'caring' adults — like the dingbat posting here. I suggest he/she/it watches this before casting stones.
This sort of casual homophobia by C4/E4 makes me MAD. the only way to change it is to do something. so if you're also MAD contact E4 @ http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/T/thinktv/programmes.html
Yes, I do think it's homophobic programming by E4.
for a start, it is made specifically for gay people. it is *not made firstly for a straight audience, like everything else covering 'our issues' on C4/E4.
secondly, it is quality stuff. well-written and acted and up there. it is not 'more american dross'.
thirdly, if you look at E4's schedule it is difficult to see the programming as anything but homophobic. it's on once-a-week, with no repeats. practically everything else is repeated. it's also on in the middle of the night.
it does have gay sex in it but then again it's no more 'offensive' then many thousands of other scenes, they just happen to be straight. I would love someone to do some research and count same-sex kisses Vs opposite-sex kisses. the result would be in the hundreds to one, if not more I reckon. I think gay sex is the real reason why it's on at 12.45am.
what else do we have on TV that comes close to our lives? the barmen on corrie? graham norton? name something!
it's all tokenistic or aimed at straight people. very valuable in terms of 'normalising' us, and graham's great, but QAF-US *isn't trying for anything like that. it's for us and that's why it's being sidelined.
even though the QAF lifestyle is one I left behind I can still relate to the dilemmas. the death of one of the HIV+ characters was much better than any other drama I've seen precisely because it assumes knowledge in the audience and doesn't have to constantly explain everything.
p.s. there is a fantastic current story in QAF/US about the treatment of gay teenagers by supposedly 'caring' adults — like the dingbat posting here. I suggest he/she/it watches this before casting stones.
This sort of casual homophobia by C4/E4 makes me MAD. the only way to change it is to do something. so if you're also MAD contact E4 @ http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/T/thinktv/programmes.html
Isambard said:Ohhhhhh Spoilers and I'm not going to get to see the third season for a while yet.
Ben gets me as too morally righteous so please let him be bumped off and not Uncle Vic!
the whole thing's like one big counselling session. 'enable' this, 'validate' that. but I think american queens talk like that anyway?
sorry if i'm giving anything away, but apart from on DVD, they'll be no second chance to see it! because E4 isn't repeating it at all!
pcanning said:
As opposed to us going "lets go and get trashed and dance our tits off at the club and have a shag in the toilets and WHAT is that she's wearing"
pcanning said:
What's E4 anyway? Bethnal Green postcode or something innit?
I can lend the DVDs off the venue that's showing it.
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
My problem isn't the fact that the programme mentions the age of the boy or the fact that two guys had sex, it is the pornographic way the scene was shown, of which may have been looked into had this been hetrosexual porn as opposed to one of which criticism seems to be taboo in some circles.Mrs Magpie said:
HarrisonSlade said:
I must have been watching a different programme cos I don't remember anything pornographic. Either that or you need to switch google safe search off and type a few rude words into the image search to get yourself an education as to what porn looks like.
Incidentally, 15 year olds are not children by anyone's standards, they are referred to as ADOLESCENTS or TEENAGERS in common parlance. Children are PRE-PUBESCENT. Had someone called you a child when you were 15 I strongly suspect you would have been jolly miffed.
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
The fact that the scene was quitye drawn out, and the fact that a particular sexual technique was used in an erotic way suggests to me that the people involved in the programme wanted to use this scene as titilation. The boy who is eventually taken in an act of anal sex is 15 years old. In other words he is still a child. The programme boasts this all the way through, thus it being soft core child porn. How can it be given any other definition on the grounds of this particular scene?jæd said:Yes, the actors should've have clothes on. Heaven forbid that gay men have sex with their clothes off.
HarrisonSlade said:
The show is jammed packed full of 101 other issues:
Parenthood
Coming out to families
Immigration
Fake marriages
Rejection by parents
Older gay men.
Gay men who aren't out.
Drugs
Clubs
Workplace issues
School bullying
I could go on for hours.
Yes, the fact is that one of the main story lines is the fact that a 15 year old had sex with an older man. Willingly, seemingly in sobriety whereas we know the older man was drunk/tripping.
There is a consistent implicit criticsm throughout the series of the Stuart charachter's sex life. Just becasue something is shown does not mean it is approved of by the writers.
Russel T Davies had been writing TV scripts for years, often with lesbian and gay subplots. Channel 4 asked him to write something with us centre stage and imvho he did a bloody good job. The gay scene or community isn't all one happy family dancing to YMCA, there are issues out there and he dealt with some of them. Or would you rather that is was swept under the carpet?
And if you think that was porn I suggest you get out more.
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
It is not about the issue. It is about the scene of which a man is shown having anal sex with a child. It is about how this long drawn out scene seems to show paedophilia as something acceptable for explicit viewing. But maybe that's the point. This is not to say that the subject should not be addressed, but to do so in such a dangerous, heavy handed pornographic way is loathesome.Isambard said:
HarrisonSlade said:
Sounds like you're more obsessed with this than most people. Oh, and its a scene where the child is activly seeking sex with the man. Who is in the wrong...? The child or the man...?
And if you think QaF was porn you really, really need to get out more. No penetration, no cumshots, not even an erect penis...
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
Is paedophilia acceptable if it's concentual on both sides. And is it acceptable to film a scene explicitely showing paedophilia as titilating viewing if the child "was asking for it".
HarrisonSlade said:
Is it acceptable to brush such issues under the carpet and pretend they don't happen...? QaF UK showed (quite explicity) what was (and still is) going on. This was the breakthrough. Up until then all gay men were shown as nice but camp old queens that everyone laughed at. QaF injected some realism.
HarrisonSlade said:
gay porn operates in a totally different universe to straight.
for one thing, it is how - in the absence of any other - often the first contact point with homosexuality - and where people learn what to do.
gay men also relate to gay porn totally differently than straight people relate to porn.
this isn't to say it's not problematic, just that the judgements, including yours, should be different because the dynamic is completely different
and I revert back to my original point about double-standards - the current, U.S. is very sexy, but no more so than lots of (hetero) shows. I really do think that some straight male programmer has gone 'yuk' and hidden it away.
I'm not explaining the QAF scene (from the UK version many moons ago, that's what we're talking about). In a world where the Daily Star at child-eye level in newsagents has shots of girls dressed in school clothes with their legs wide open, I don't see why we're the ones having to explain anything, frankly.
HarrisonSlade said:
What a nasty twist of the English language there!
"Asking for it" in this sense means PROVOKING a sexual assault. ie "the slag deserved to get raped, she had a short skirt on."
In this case the charachter Nathan was not out "acting provocatively" and "provoking" sexual abuse. He ACTIVELY went out to Canal Street in Manchester to meet men for CONSENSUAL sex. Yes, the law says at 15 he wasn't really able to consent but the image in the show is of a young man who was able to.
As for "dangerous"? Ha fucking ha! I will repeat again: It was part of the story that Nathan was SAFER in Manchester with an adoptive "family" who made sure he was looked after and practising safer sex that away down to London to god knows what.
Similar threads
